Do Iran And Israel Get Along? Unpacking Decades Of Hostility
Table of Contents
- The Historical Arc: From Cordiality to Open Hostility
- Ideological Divide and Non-Recognition
- The Nuclear Ambition: A Central Conflict Point
- Regional Power Plays: The Axis of Resistance vs. Normalization
- Proxies and Direct Confrontations: A "War Without a War"
- The Gaza Conflict's Ripple Effect: October 7 and Beyond
- International Perspectives and US Involvement
- Can the Relationship Change? Conditions for a Shift
The Historical Arc: From Cordiality to Open Hostility
To truly grasp the current state of affairs and why Iran and Israel do not get along, it's crucial to understand that their relationship wasn't always one of outright animosity. History reveals a fascinating, albeit brief, period of strategic cooperation.Early Encounters: A Cold War Alliance
For most of the Cold War, the relationship between Iran and Israel was surprisingly cordial. Both nations, situated in a volatile region, found common ground in their strategic interests. Israel, an emerging state, sought alliances beyond the immediate Arab world, while the Shah's Iran, a key US ally, saw value in a relationship that could potentially improve its standing with the United States. As one piece of data suggests, "It was always Israel that was the proactive party, but the Shah also wanted a way to improve its [Iran’s] relations with the US, and at the time Israel was seen as a good way to achieve that aim." This pragmatic alignment saw cooperation in various sectors, including intelligence sharing and even covert military assistance. This period laid the groundwork for a regional dynamic that was far from the confrontational stance we observe today.The Iranian Revolution: A Turning Point
The delicate balance of this relationship was shattered with the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. This seismic event transformed the nation's political landscape, ushering in an anti-Western, anti-Zionist ideology that fundamentally reshaped its foreign policy. As the provided data clearly states, "Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution transformed previously cordial relations between Iran and Israel to fierce hostility." The new Islamic Republic viewed Israel as an illegitimate entity and a tool of Western imperialism in the Middle East. This ideological shift was not merely rhetorical; it became the cornerstone of Iran's regional strategy, setting it on a collision course with Israel. The relationship, which had been cordial for most of the Cold War, "worsened following the Iranian revolution and has been openly hostile since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."Ideological Divide and Non-Recognition
At the heart of why Iran and Israel do not get along is a profound ideological chasm. Iran's current government does not recognize Israel's legitimacy as a state. This non-recognition is not a mere diplomatic formality; it is a deeply embedded principle stemming from the foundational ideology of the Islamic Revolution. The Iranian leadership views Israel as an occupying power in Palestinian lands and a symbol of Western dominance, thereby denying its right to exist as a sovereign nation. This fundamental disagreement on Israel's legitimacy fuels much of the animosity. For Iran, supporting Palestinian resistance movements and challenging Israel's presence in the region is seen as a religious and revolutionary duty. This ideological stance dictates Iran's foreign policy, ensuring that any possibility of normal diplomatic relations or peaceful coexistence remains firmly off the table under the current Iranian regime.The Nuclear Ambition: A Central Conflict Point
Perhaps the most significant and pressing point of contention between Iran and Israel is Iran's nuclear program. Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, a red line that it is prepared to defend with all necessary means. This concern is not unfounded, given Iran's stated hostility and its development of missile capabilities.Israel's Proactive Stance Against Iran's Nuclear Program
Israel has adopted a proactive and often covert strategy to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions. This includes alleged sabotage, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and military commanders. One piece of data mentions, "Israel's operation rising lion has delivered the heaviest blow yet to Iran's nuclear ambitions, with air strikes killing the Islamic Republic's top military command and nuclear scientists as." While the specific details of "Operation Rising Lion" are not widely publicized, the sentiment reflects Israel's long-standing policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly articulated their goal regarding Iran's nuclear program. When asked if Israel is seeking regime change in Iran, Netanyahu stated that "regime change could be the result of Israel’s actions because 'the Iran regime is very weak.' Israel, at a minimum, wants to do enough damage to Iran’s nuclear program that Tehran cannot reconstitute it for the foreseeable future or race to get" a nuclear bomb. This illustrates Israel's determination to degrade Iran's capabilities to a point where the threat is neutralized, even if it doesn't explicitly aim for regime change. The underlying message is clear: Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.Regional Power Plays: The Axis of Resistance vs. Normalization
The conflict between Iran and Israel extends far beyond their direct borders, manifesting as a broader struggle for regional influence. Both nations employ distinct strategies to bolster their positions and counter the other's power.The Abraham Accords: Reshaping Regional Dynamics
To counter Iran’s influence, Israel has pursued a strategy of normalization with Arab states, many of which share Israel’s concerns about Iranian expansionism. This strategy culminated in the Abraham Accords, signed in 2020. These accords "marked a historic shift in regional dynamics by formalizing peace agreements between Israel and several Gulf states, including the UAE and Bahrain." This diplomatic breakthrough was a significant blow to Iran's regional standing, as it fostered an unprecedented alignment between Israel and Sunni Arab states who previously maintained a united front against Israel. The accords created a de facto anti-Iran coalition, further isolating Tehran and complicating its regional ambitions.Proxies and Direct Confrontations: A "War Without a War"
Iran's strategic construct to fight a "war without a war" is known as the "Axis of Resistance." This network comprises various state and non-state actors across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups receive financial, military, and logistical support from Iran, serving as proxies to project Iranian power and threaten Israeli interests without direct military engagement between the two states. As the data notes, "Part seven considers the axis of resistance, Iran’s main strategic construct to fight a “war without a war”." This proxy warfare often leads to indirect confrontations. For instance, "Smoke rises from an Israeli attack on Shahran oil depot in Tehran on June 15 Iran and Israel continued to attack each other on Wednesday night, as US President Donald Trump said I may do it, i." This seemingly contradictory statement (direct attacks vs. "war without a war") highlights the complex reality where direct, albeit often undeclared, military actions occur alongside proxy conflicts. "Iran blames Israel for a strike on its Syria consulate, and has vowed to retaliate." This incident, where "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said the April 1 attack on the consulate building in Damascus, for which Iran blames Israel, was tantamount to an attack on Iranian territory," underscores the dangerous escalation potential of these indirect and direct exchanges.The Gaza Conflict's Ripple Effect: October 7 and Beyond
The ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, ignited by Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, has further exacerbated tensions and highlighted the intricate web of alliances in the region. "The region is already on edge as Israel seeks to annihilate the Hamas militant group, an Iranian ally, in the Gaza Strip, where war still rages after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on southern." This direct confrontation between Israel and an Iranian-backed proxy has inevitably drawn Iran into the broader narrative, even if not directly on the battlefield. Iran's own strategy in the aftermath of October 7 involves careful calculation, potentially employing techniques like 'reflexive control,' a Soviet technique to influence an adversary's decision-making. "Part eight considers Iran’s own strategy in the aftermath of October 7 with reference to the Soviet technique of ‘reflexive control’." This suggests that Iran is strategically leveraging the Gaza conflict to its advantage, aiming to exhaust Israel, divert international attention, and potentially strengthen its regional position without necessarily engaging in a full-scale direct war. The events of October 7 have undeniably raised the stakes, making the question of "do Iran and Israel get along" even more pertinent in a region teetering on the brink.International Perspectives and US Involvement
The United States plays a crucial, albeit complex, role in the Iran-Israel dynamic. As Israel's staunchest ally, the U.S. often finds itself navigating a delicate balance between supporting Israel's security concerns and avoiding direct military confrontation with Iran. There have been instances where the U.S. has been implicated, or at least perceived to be involved, in Israeli actions against Iran. "Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran has “solid evidence” that the U.S. provided support for Israel’s attacks." While the U.S. typically maintains a stance of non-direct involvement in specific Israeli operations, the perception of support, whether material or diplomatic, persists in Tehran. The question of U.S. military intervention against Iran has been a recurring theme, particularly during the Trump administration. "President Trump said he would make a decision about attacking Iran “within the next two” days at one point, and later stated, “I may do it, I may not do it.” This illustrates the constant tension and the potential for a broader conflict involving the U.S. The pressure on the U.S. to act, or refrain from acting, is immense. "Israel is waiting for the United States to get directly involved," indicating Israel's desire for stronger U.S. backing or even direct intervention in its confrontation with Iran. Public opinion in the U.S. regarding support for either side in the Iran-Israel conflict is varied. "In total, just 8% of those polled said the U.S. should support Iran in the current conflict with Israel, while 31% said we should support neither side." This data suggests a strong reluctance among Americans to side with Iran, and a significant portion prefers neutrality, reflecting the complexity of the issue and the desire to avoid further entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts.Can the Relationship Change? Conditions for a Shift
Given the entrenched hostility, one might wonder if there's any scenario where Iran and Israel could eventually "get along." The current political and ideological landscapes make such a prospect seem highly improbable, but theoretical conditions for a shift do exist. For a meaningful change in Iran's position towards Israel, "two main conditions are imperative: For Iran, a clear incentive to reshape the policy along with a leadership capable of implementing such a policy change." This implies that a fundamental shift in Iran's ruling ideology or a significant change in its strategic priorities would be necessary. Without a leadership willing to deviate from the anti-Zionist principles enshrined since the 1979 revolution, any genuine rapprochement seems impossible. Similarly, for Israel, its security concerns, particularly regarding Iran's nuclear program and regional proxies, would need to be addressed. The path to de-escalation, let alone normalization, is fraught with challenges. While diplomacy is often touted as a solution, its effectiveness is limited by the deep-seated mistrust and conflicting national interests. "After openly threatening to join Israel’s war and bomb Iran, President Trump now seems willing to give diplomacy some more time." This highlights the volatile nature of the situation, where military threats can quickly pivot to diplomatic overtures, yet the underlying animosity persists. The question of "do Iran and Israel get along" remains firmly answered in the negative, with little immediate hope for change.Conclusion
The relationship between Iran and Israel is a saga of escalating hostility, rooted in ideological clashes, geopolitical rivalries, and existential security concerns. From a period of unexpected cordiality during the Cold War, the 1979 Iranian Revolution irrevocably transformed their interactions into open enmity, driven by Iran's non-recognition of Israel and its anti-Zionist foreign policy. The core of their conflict revolves around Iran's nuclear ambitions, which Israel views as an intolerable threat, leading to a proactive campaign to dismantle or delay Tehran's capabilities. This struggle is further complicated by a regional power play, where Iran leverages its "Axis of Resistance" proxies, while Israel counters with normalization efforts like the Abraham Accords. Recent events, particularly the Gaza conflict following October 7, have underscored the fragility of regional stability and the constant threat of wider escalation. International actors, especially the United States, remain deeply entangled in this complex dynamic, often walking a tightrope between alliance and de-escalation. In conclusion, the answer to "do Iran and Israel get along" is a resounding no. Their relationship is characterized by deep mistrust, proxy warfare, and the ever-present shadow of direct confrontation. A fundamental shift in either nation's core ideology or strategic calculus would be required for any meaningful change, a prospect that currently appears distant. As this enduring rivalry continues to shape the Middle East, understanding its intricate layers is crucial for comprehending the region's future trajectory. What are your thoughts on the future of Iran-Israel relations? Share your perspectives in the comments below, or explore other articles on our site to delve deeper into Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Do Button, Do Camera, and Do Note, A Trio of Incredibly Simple Mobile
"Do" vs. "Does" – What's The Difference? | Thesaurus.com
Using Do vs. Does Properly in Questions and Sentences | YourDictionary
